Kantor, J. R. (1974). Interbehavioral Psychology: Ho Relate! to the "#$eri%ental &nalysis o' (ehavior. "n &$ortaciones al &n)lisis !e Ia *on!

+cta: ,e%orias !el Pri%er *ongreso, ,e#ico, "!. -rillas, $$.1./00. Interbehavioral Psychology: How related to the Experimental Analysis of Behavior? J ! "antor

In this company of psychologists it is highly superogatory to acclaim the great significance of psychological events. We are therefore fully in accord in the belief that psychology should be a science on a par with astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology. To achieve this goal psychology must abide by the two following interrelated principles. 1. The avoidance of irrelevant and harmful cultural traditions. 2. The exclusive concern with confrontable events. In this way and only in this way can we hope for an authentic system of Psychology. nfortunately to follow the lead of the first principle to be difficult, since mentalistic views persist in dominating the thin!ing of psychologists even when they are committed to experimental procedures in their wor!. "n the whole it is no easy tas! to lift psychology out of the psychic morass in which it has been immersed for two thousand years. #rom the history of psychology we learn of two revolutionary events which during the present century have helped to free psychology from the stranglehold of mentalism, and to ma!e possible a scientific discipline of psychology. "ne was the escalation of the various sciences, and the other the establishment of the doctrine of $iological %volution. The general development of the physicochemical sciences and the various branches of the biological disciplines provided strong incentives and support for the evolution of psychology as a science. The science of physiology turned students of psychological behavior in the direction of understanding the behaving organism and showed the way to experimentation. It was through the spread of the doctrine of biological continuity that the barrier between the human and nonhuman was removed so that studies of animal behavior could be included as features of the psychological domain. It is a fair assumption that both the escalation of interest and achievement in science as well as the acceptance of evolutionary principles greatly aided the escape of psychology from the transcendental ideology of the &ar! 'ges. The freedom was gained to observe and investigate the actions of organisms as naturalistic adaptations to the things and conditions that environ them.

(appily the second principle offers very little resistance. The very presence of such a multiplicity of behavior events of both human and subhuman types almost forced upon psychologists the observational and experimental stimulation to carry on scientific studies. The reali)ation that a psychological science can be inaugurated on the basis of studying behavior unencumbered by animistic notions has given rise to an antimentalistic movement which became !nown as $ehaviorism. The pivotal point of this movement is the freedom from all preoccupation with internal states, mental or psychic processes or introspective consciousness, all of which are derivations from the intangible, extraspatial soul invented in the dar! ages of psychological history. *ow I should li!e to present a brief and concise s!etch of Interbehaviorial Psychology as a systematic type of antimentalism, with which I have been concerned for over half a century. The basic point of interbehavioral psychology is that every psychological event consists of a complex field comprised of a number of components or factors. These fields are the outgrowth of ecological biology and not of the isolated organismic speciali)ations that go by the name of anatomy and physiology. Psychological fields represent a fourth evolution following +1, the inorganic, +2, the phylogenetic, +-, the ontogenetic evolutions of organisms and their environing ob.ects and conditions. This series of evolution levels are illustrated in #ig. 1. #ig. 1/
#ourth %volution/ Interbehavioral (istory Third %volution/ "ntogenetic %volution 1econd %volution/ Phylogenetic %volution %volution of acts and traits as responses to ob.ects, conditions, and institutions. &evelopment of stimulus0response functions %mbryological development of individual organisms

%volution of organism0environment ad.ustments and adaptations %volution of species, genera, and phyla &evelopment of plants and stars &evelopment of the earth

#irst %volution/ Inorganic evolution

%volution of planets and stars &evelopment of chemical elements, compounds, and various chemical processes

It is of the utmost importance to be aware of the details of the behavior segments which are the primary units of psychological event fields. The accompanying diagram +#ig. 2, points to the factors that ma!e up a psychological field.

#ig. 2 $ehavior 1egment +or nit Psychological %vent,

2$ 3 2eactional $iography4 1% 3 1timulus %volution4 2# 3 2esponse #unction4 1# 3 1timulus #unction

5entral to all segments of interbehavior are the interdependent actions or functions of the organism and of the stimulus ob.ect. These actions are mutual and reciprocal, and are usually build up in previous confrontations of the organism and the stimulus ob.ect or condition. The reciprocity feature of psychological interbehavior are well represented by the double headed arrow as in #ig. -.

!#$$%&
*ext we must ta!e into account the media of contact which constitutes an enabling condition for the interbehavior of organisms and stimulus ob.ects. %xamples are the light and air waves which mediate visual and auditory interactions. 'n e6ually important set of factors constitute the setting or framewor! of the behavior segments. 1uch are the specific conditions which influence the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a particular interbehavior, and also the specific way the activity is carried out. #inally, it must be pointed out that each behavior segment is abstracted from the grand continuum of behavior. 'ccordingly, each segment is derived from and influenced by the previous segments ma!ing up the organism7s interbehavioral history and exerts important influences upon the immediately following behavior segments. The precise merits of interbehavioral psychology is a thorougoing naturalism devoid of any transcendental principle, and moreover it is fully capable of ade6uately treating every type of psychological behavior whether performed by human or on human animals.

't this point we face the 6uestion which is fre6uently posed, concerning the relationship between Interbehavioral Psychology and the movement called The %xperimental 'nalysis of $ehavior +%'$,. While a number of psychologists have suggested that the %'$ movement is directly derived from Interbehavioral Psychology I am loath to endorse this viewpoint. Instead I propose to point out some similarities and some dissimilarities between the two movements. I do so in spite of the fact that since interbehavioral psychology became developed in the early decades of the present century it may appear plausible to believe that %'$ was at least partially influenced by that development. &imilarities 5onsidering the great importance of establishing psychology on a firm scientific basis there can be no greater resemblance between interbehavioral psychology and %'$ than the fact that they both are thoroughly antimentalistic. 8i!e interbehavioral psychology %'$ strives to eliminate all of the traditional and historical animistic entities whether called 9mind9, 9consciousness9, 9sensation9, or 9emotion9. 'ariances While from a scientific standpoint the strongest ties bind interbehavioral psychology and %'$ together are differences which might be noted. I point some of these out under several headings. Proximate origin. Interbehavioral psychology originated as the counterpart of the other sciences by selecting as its province the ad.ustment of organisms to their environing things and events. These ad.ustments are to be investigated by field observation, experimentation, and naturalistic interpretation. %'$ on the other hand may only be regarded as a subdomain of such a naturalistic system of psychology. The record of %'$ indicates that the movement found considerable inspiration in the wor! of Pavlov and other wor!ers in animal conditioning. 1cope. Whereas interbehavioral psychology ta!es for its province the in6uiry into the nature of all psychological events including human as well as nonhuman interbehavior such as perceiving, remembering, feeling, reasoning, and so on, %'$ has been on the whole restricted to the study of nonhuman organisms which have lent themselves to the various conditioning techni6ues. 's a distinctive movement in psychology %'$ is fairly well confined to learning or behavior modification. When %'$ concerns itself with human behavior it gears such events to a conditioning model. 1$erational Princi$les. It is the most salient principle of %'$ that organisms perform interactions with stimulus ob.ects primarily on the basis of rewards called reinforcement. In general, organisms are presumed to interact with their surroundings on the basis of powers resident in the environment. The relevant formula is

!(f)&*
This involves an unfortunate assumption concerning the causation principle. *either human nor animal behavior may be interpreted as causes or elicited by stimulus ob.ects

as represented by the symbol,

!#$$&
or are simply emitted as per the symbol,

!$$%&
The symbol for the %'$ operational assumption is derived from the contrivances of animal control in experimental learning studies. The operational principles of interbehavioral psychology are founded upon the postulation that scientific descriptions and interpretations follow from observations made upon interbehavior in free as well as constrained situations. 'ccordingly, it is not proper to reduce all the various behavioral propositions to an a priori formula even when it fits constrained laboratory situations. In sum, descriptions and interpretations are mainfold when derived from actual confronted events. 1rganis%ic 2actors in Psychological "vents. 's a final suggestion concerning the relationship between interbehavioral psychology and %'$ we compare the views of each relative to the organisms that participate in psychological interbehavior. 1ince the interbehavioral psychologist regards psychological events as evolved from bioecological events he ta!es seriously into account the findings of biological science relative to the positive or negative influences of the biological factors that participate in psychological fields. The interbehavioral psychologist recommends an effective orientation with respect to the morphology, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, and ecology of organisms. 'c6uaintance is imperative with the various biological systems whether muscular, glandular, neural, supportive, or connective. $y comparison %'$ tends to concern itself primarily with the abstracted learning relation and the involved constraints. In conse6uence, %'$ when considered as a general psychological movement is restricted and handicapped. 1pecifically, it disdains to consider all of the numerous informal contacts of organisms with stimulus ob.ects and conditions, the sources of most of the behavioral repertoire of psychological organisms. *o less remiss is %'$ in exploring the important domain of species0specific activities which can cast much light upon naturalistic psychology. +oncl,sion While considering the relationship of interbehavioral psychology and %'$ the 6uestion arises as to how one envisages the latter. If one regards it as a uni6ue speciali)ed movement within the general field of psychology one may well assign it an important place in the naturalistic science of interbehavioral psychology. This is not to overloo! its historical connections with the physiologically based conditioning movement. 1uch an assignment is made with the clear view that as an affiliate of $ehaviorism its naturalistic aspect signifies only that the behavior of organisms can be studied without resort to mentals of any !ind. It is of course a great merit thus to be detached from introspective mentality.

$ut when %'$ is envisaged as a general system of psychology one must stress the point that there are important departures from interbehavioral psychology. 1uch differences reach bac! to basic postulation. Interbehavioral psychology does not merely pass by and avoid transcendental entities but rather fortified by a study of institutional and historical origins reali)es that psychic processes of every variety are palpable inventions of persons influenced by historically adverse life conditions, and thus are alien to scientific wor!. 1ince psychological science has no need to shape its wor! with respect to nonexisting mind0body or brain0psyche problems all observations and interpretations are directly and exclusively derived from encounters with organism0stimulus ob.ect interactions. 'n incidental difference between interbehavioral psychology concerns the 6uestion of control vis0:0vis understanding. Whereas %'$ stresses control : outrance ma!ing it a principle of operation and interpretation, interbehavioral psychology leans toward understanding as a value in itself and as an essential propadeutic to all significant control.